HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-42-81 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Director's Report addressing Resolution # F-85-81
Item: WD-42-81.
Date: March 6, 1981.
Subject: Hale Garbage Disposal Site.
Lot 12, Concession 3, former Township of Clarke.
Weight Restrictions - March lst to April 30th.
Report:
On Tuesday, March 3, 1981, a delegation appeared before the Finance
& Administration Committee requesting exemption from the weight
restrictions imposed by the Town of Newcastle in conjunction with
the provisions of The Highway Traffic Act. As a result, Resolution
F-85-81_-was passed, and recommended to Council, as follows:
'.THAT the delegation be acknowledged and those ,interested
in obtaining ne ie6 6rom the Highway Tray 6,ic Act 6or
Garbage D 5posal Units mare wn i.ttet appti.eation to the
mtolicipaeity and the matter be re6evLed to the Chairman
06 Finance, the Chairman o6 Pub.Uc Wotks and the D)Lector
o Pubtic_Wok zs to coves utt with the Sotic itor and 'ne-
commend to the next Councit meeting how thi6 matter may
be dealt with on an ,inteAim baz i s ll.
The writer has been able to gather certain information pertaining
to this matter, which would appear to merit consideration.
It is indicated that approximately one hundred (100) garbage trucks
(loads) are received at Hale's Disposal Site-daily. Most of these
ve is es g=ain access to the Site via the Third Concession, Morgan's
Road, the Fourth Concession and the road between Lots 13 & 14,
Concession 4, which is located a distance of 9.4 kilometres east of
Highway 35/1.15, in Clarke Township. This primary route is shown on
the attached map thus - - - The areas marked are those i
which are in deteriorated condition.
I
Roads under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham are designed
and intended for far more concentrated usage by heavy traffic than
are Municipal roadways, and are thus less susceptible to suffering
an adverse impact. However, in a late discussion with Regional
personnel, it has been discovered that only under very rare cir-
cumstances will the Region issue exemption permits, and such action
is taken well ahead of the restrictive periods for weights on their
roads.
`) q1,1 0 r
dd
2 -
The permits issued by the Region of Durham are, in accordance
with The Highway Traffic Act, on a compensation for usage basis;
the carriers enter into an Agreement with the Region and pay a
sum of money to defray expenditure incurred by any adverse
effect the traffic may have. The issuance of these permits is
not frequent, and apart from same, the Region will allow no
exemptions from the "half load" limitations.
Had the Region been willing to consider, or condone, the use
of their roads by the companies operating garbage trucks to the
Hale Site, a preferred route would have been via Regional Road
18 (from Highway 2) , northerly to the Fourth Concession. This
would have reduced the distance travelled on Municipal roads
to 2.8 kilometres.
Insofar as the request for the issuance of permits to the four
companies for whom Messrs. Michaels & Michaels, Solicitors, are
acting is concerned (see copy letter attached) , the writer has
extreme reservations about such a practice. While The Highway
Traffic Act details that permits may be issued for specific roads,
and that compensation may be levied to defray the costs of any
additional maintenance which results from the impact of heavy
traffic, it is felt that such action would result in further
requests for exemption and, having set a precedent, it would be
difficult to impose weight restrictions at all; thus the burden
would be on the Municipality and the "half-load" season of
respite from heavy traffic would be nullified.
It is felt that the taxpayers of this Municipality cannot be
given the unnecessary and considerable financial expense which
would ensue from the detrimental impact of specialized heavy truck
traffic during the season from March lst to April 30th.
It should also be noted that it would be difficult to conscient-
iously consider and grant permits allowing full loading for garbage
and/or industrial waste which does not originate from the Municipality
on which it is imposing an impact.
On-site inspections (March 6, 1981) have established that, by any
standards, the roads presently being used are experiencing con-
siderable damage, and for this reason alone it is important that
weight restrictions be imposed and enforced. The only possible and
acceptable way in which heavy traffic usage could be condoned and
approved would be by the levying of an equitable amount of com-
pensation to the Town, from the carriers, sufficient and compatible
with the extent of rehabilitation and maintenance required.
I
I
3 -
Should consideration be given to the issuance of the above-
mentioned permits, they should be for the traffic to use the
Fourth Concession, rather than the Third Concession, which is,
already, in poor condition. (See nnnn..nn on attached map) .
The established route for haulage would then be via Highway
35/115 to the Fourth Concession then easterly to the road
between Lots 13 & 14, Clarke. The distance covered on the Fourth
Concession would be 7 .3 kilometres .
In the event that the above is discussed, it should be borne in
mind that the Fourth Concession is presently of substandard
quality, with no plans for reconstruction. At the present (and
requested) rate of usage, this Municipality will have no alter-
native but to expend considerable funds in order to restore the
road to a tolerable standard.
Conclusion:
It is the writer's opinion that a permit should not be granted
as there are doubted)
y undoubtedly, other carriers experiencing concerns
with weight restrictions and, ultimately, the result could well
be that all roads under the ,jurisdiction of this Municipality
would become exempt.
Finally, if Council wishes to grant permits, as requested, in
accordance with The Highway Traffic Act, an Agreement should be
entered into with each individual carrier whereby compensation
is paid to the Town of Newcastle for the additional maintenance
operations necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
i
I
J. DUNIIAM.e
I
i
i
i
i
NOIlb1S �`-
1 � G
a.rv�; `•y d
� lownU u r t jj
a
f \
SS 3-.)N 0o, n0 +, o 4 � 0 �
j
►ao�a►-tom 1. . ��'y, ..`=� o..•' xVv
os
���c r•�•ceLr ( I /
\\ 0>Oa
101 Hr•>tI /
.7 � C>Ga w0X><✓1
\ •7V SRI a>4 ��.._c�. B• _
' TT
6 C lorn]ak3'J ' �/
_ 6
CORPOPAT ION OF TH1',
TOWN OF Ni:WCAS IJ:
BY -- LMf
Being; a by-law to restrict the weight which a
commercial_ motor vehicle or trailer can trans-
mit to a municipal road.
WHEREAS subsection 10 of Section 77 of The Highway Traffic Act,
R. S.O. 1970, c. 202, as amended, provides that the municipal corp-
oration or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway may
declare the previsions of subsections 5, 7 and 13 of Section 77 to
apply to highways under its jurisdiction during any period of the year,
or that the provisions of subsections 5 and 7 do not apply to any or
nli highways under Its jur_tsdiction;
NOW THEREFORE iii', IT ENACTEh AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED ns a by-law of
The Corporation trf they Town of NpttvnaLIe by the Con rwI1 I h P reo F ns
follows:
1 . tiubjM to Section h6 of The Highway TraiT & Act, R.S.O.
1070, c. 2(12, as amended, during the period from the first_ day of March
to the twenty-first day of May inclusive, no comma rcfat motor vvhisLc or
trailer, other Chan a public 'Vehicle, or a L,to--axle film. truck or twt)
axle truck while either is used as referred to in suction 2 of this
ity- Inw, shat l lw operated or drawn on an.v road or port Lon thercrof tbal_
in part of the munici_pal road system, where nny axle of such commerrial_
motor vehicle or trailer transmits to the municiipnl rond a weight in
excess of 5,000 kilograms.
2. Subject to Section 66 of The Highway Traffic Art , R. S.O. L970,
c. 202, as amended, during the months of March and April. , no two-nue
tank truck, wh!Le used exclusively for the transportnrion of liquid or
gaseous heating fuel, and no two axle truck, while used for the trans-
portation of live ;stock feed, shall he operated on any road or port i"ll
thereof that Is part of the municipal rowel system, where any axle transmits
to the hi_ghwn, Qht in excess of 7, 500 kilograms.
3. Subject to Section 66 of The highway Traffic Act , R. S.O.
1970, c. 202, as amended, during the period from the first dray of March
to the twenty—first clay of May, inclusive, no vehicle having ;a carrying
capacity in excess of 1,000 kilograms, other than a motor vehicle or
trailer, shall he operated on any road or portion thereof that is part
of the municipal road system, where the weight upon any millimetre in
the width of ti-re exceeds 5 kilograms.
4. Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this
by—law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of. :
i
(a) ;2. 00 per 100 kilograms, or part thereof, for any weight in
excess of that permitted under The highway Traffic Art or the rpgul;atfon�;
thereto, where the overweight is less than 5,000 kilograms, hut in no
case shall the fine he less than $50, 00;
(h) $4. 00 per 100 kilograms, , or part thereof, for any . eight in
excess of that permit Led under The highway Traffics ,Act , or the rugolations
thereto, where the overweight is 5,000 kilr,grNms or more but is 10AH LhAn
1, 500 ki lonrAms;
(c) $6. 00 per 100 kilograms, or part thereof , for any weight in
excess of that permitted under The highway Tr;af f-i_c Act or the regulat Lons
thereto, where ( he overweight in 7 , 500 kilograms or more hut: is less than
1 0,000 kilograms;
i
(d) $8.00 per 100 kilograms, or Bart thereof, for any weight in
excess of Lh;at permLtted under The Highway Traffic Act or the regulations �
thereto, where the overweight is 10,000 kilograms or more but is -Less than
15,000 kilograms anti;
I
(e) $10.00 per 1.00 kilogr;rms , or part thereof , for any weight in !
i
excess of that permitted under The Highway Traffic Act or the regulations �
thereto, where the overweight is 15,000 1- f lonrnms or more.
I
By-Inw read a first time this Sth day of April 19 so
By-law read a second time this 8th day of April 19 80
By-law rend a third time and finally passed
this 8Lh day of April 19 SO
Simi,
MAYOR
Michaels & Michaels
Barristers -Solicitors (416)579-5522
P.O.Box 2395
50 Colborne St East
Lucian Michaels, B.A., LL.B. Oshawa,Ontario
Barry H. Michaels, B.A., LL.B. OG 11_9
Reply To: L . Michaels
March 5 , 1981
Town of Newcastle a PY
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville , Ontario
Dear Sirs :
Re : Half Load Regulations under the Highway Traffic Act
We represent a number of concerned garbage disposal
companies who have incurred severe hardship in the operation of
their businesses in servicing the Town of Newcastle as a result
of the half load regulations effected under the Highway Traffic
Act by the Town of Newcastle ' s Public Works Department .
In particular , this matter has been drawn to your
attention on behalf of Regional Reclaimers Limited , T. Puckrin &
Son Ltd. , Phil Groeneveld & Sons Disposal Services Ltd . , and
Brown ' s Disposal .
The aforementioned companies have instructed me to apply
on their behalf for a permit authorizing movement of their vehicles
on town roads both in the orderly pick-up of garbage and the delivery
of same to the Hale garbage disposal site within the Town of New-
castle in excess of the weight and dimentional limits provided for
under the Highway Traffic Act.
The nature of the disposal operation referred to is such
that the statutory restrictions restrain these businesses from
being able to fulfill their contractual obligations in the pick-up
and removal of garbage throughout the Town of Newcastle during the
half load season expiring on April 30th , 1981 .
RECEIVED
MAR 5 1881
WORKS DEPT.
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
i
Town of Newcastle - 2 - March 5 , 1981
We would therefore ask Council on their meeting of
March 9th , 1981 , to adopt the recommendation of the Director of
Public Works in concert with the Town Solicitor , in dealing with
this most pressing problem.
Yours truly
MICHAELS & MICHAELS
LM/dp Lucian Michaels
c . c . - Mr. J . Dunham,
Mr. D. Sims .
I
i
i
i
j
i
i
I